Amateur naturalism, part four


I didn’t initially intend it this way, but we’ve been working through a scale of increasing difficulty and effort in this series, starting with insects, then working through birds, then reptiles, and come finally to mammals. In my journeys, mammals have been the hardest to photograph and observe, for a number of reasons. So my first warning is, be patient, and be prepared for not seeing very much.

We tend to relate more to mammals, it appears, not perhaps for the least of which that we ourselves belong to that order, but to be honest, I think it’s more because mammals display both more apparent emotion through their eyes and expressions, and have more behavior that we recognize – or at least, think that we do. More on this shortly. First, our lists.

What do I need? This list is short, because mammal observation doesn’t benefit from many materials at all.

Flashlight. As before, a head-mounted one works better, and of course, spare batteries. Many mammals are far more active at night, so expect to spend some nights outside. Additionally, most mammals have reflective eyes, so a head-mounted flashlight provides a light source close to your own eyes, minimizing the reflection angle and increasing your likelihood of spotting something.

Appropriate clothing. The temperature often drops at night, and you may well be in rough country, so dress for trailblazing, with layers you can add or remove as needed. Since mammals rely on their noses to some extent, skip the perfumey detergents or softeners – and for that matter, cologne or scented toiletries on your body as well. Camouflage is better than, for instance, high-contrast clothing, but not absolutely necessary. The color vision of many mammals is limited in certain ways – not necessarily ‘color blindness,’ but often the inability to distinguish a wide range of colors. Usually, muted and darker colors are fine.

Measuring tape. Used for size of tracks and distance between, height of territorial marks, width of teeth marks, and the like. In a lot of cases, you’ll see more evidence of mammals than the mammals themselves, and this can help detail what, exactly, you’re seeing evidence of.

Collecting bags. Unlike the reptiles, these are used more for the evidence itself rather than collecting species. Usually ziplock plastic bags, film cans, or something similar work fine. In addition, tweezers or forceps for smaller or more gross items – you might actually be collecting feces for examination, if you’re serious ;-)

Binoculars. Again, good for identifying species from a distance, but not terribly high on the importance list – not like for birds.

The ability not to get lost. This is especially important if you’re trying to follow an animal trail at night. Orientation/trail skills, or a decent GPS unit, work very well here. I would add either area maps for the GPS, or a good knowledge ahead of time of the salient terrain features, like streams and ravines. These are distinct features that can tell you where you are, and direct you where you need to be. The typical topo maps, like the kind available from US Geological Survey, are often of limited use because they’re on a larger scale than a hiker can use. You’ll want fine detail.

Believe it or not, an identification guide is not really necessary, unless you’re trying to identify spoor (tracks, marks, feces.) Mammal species are usually quite distinct in an area, and easy to learn – most people can learn to tell a raccoon from an opossum pretty quickly ;-). And while identifying tracks can sometimes be useful, it requires terrain that leaves distinct tracks in the first place, like the mud at the edge of streams, or fine silty soil. Heavy forest, grasslands, and such terrain usually provide nothing to see, so while you might start tracking at a streamside, it becomes easy to lose the trail a short ways further on.

So, what am I looking for? Unlike the other classes we’ve covered, you’re likely to be doing as much detective work as you are actually seeing mammals, if not more. You’ll be looking for evidence that they’ve been around, especially if you’re doing anything in the day. This means tracks, trails through the tall grasses, feeding signs, freshly-dug small holes, and, occasionally, feces.

Start at the water. Everything needs water, but mammal species often leave the most distinct traces of their passing there. The fresher and more accessible, the better. Follow the edges of streams, looking for tracks and trails of flattened grass leading away. Also look for deposits of shells from molluscs and crayfish – this often indicates otters or raccoons. Steeper banks along deeper water often allows for entrances to beaver dens in the banks, but muskrats more often seek shallower areas because they eat grasses.

Spot the trails. Most times, this is simply an area of flattened grasses, so keep a sharp eye out. On the banks of water, you might see a smooth, cleared slide area often indicative of beavers – if so, you can often find anything from small sticks to limbs that have been cut, gnawed, or stripped of bark. Deer will often leave behind a large flattened section (about a meter across) in very deep grasses where they made their beds. However, wolves, foxes, raccoons, and opossums often have no trails at all, since they wander opportunistically looking for food.

In early mornings, occasionally you can find a very faint trail of overturned leaves, especially since they’ll have been damp on their undersides and this shows when disturbed. When the dewpoint arrived sometime in the night, occasionally a larger animal passing through high grass will have shaken off the dew there, leaving a very subtle trail that might be seen with the light at your back.

Listen! This is very important in spotting mammals. Their movements produce more sound than the others we’ve discussed, but it is still usually very subtle (the biggest exception, in my experience, is squirrels, which can produce a racket way out of proportion to their size.) The normal sounds of wind and such rarely produce little snaps or distinct rustles, so these are what you’re paying attention to. Freeze the moment you hear them and wait them out – if something is nearby, you’ll hear them again shortly. And of course, this means you can’t be sending your own signals, which animals are quite adept at listening for themselves, so you’ll be avoiding leaves, twigs, gravel, bubble wrap, and anything else that causes your feet to make noise. Find the bare patches or soft grasses, move slowly and gently, and pause very frequently.

Look! Well, this is obvious, but there are some good habits to get into. Most especially, any time you’re about to leave an area of, for instance, screening trees or tall grasses, pause just inside the edge and scan the open areas very carefully. There’s nothing like bursting out into the open to scare off something you could have seen easily, which also means that sticking to edges and cover helps a lot more than crossing open fields. Watch those stream banks carefully, and look for those breaks in patterns. Most mammals are brown or greyish-brown to varying degrees, and can be distinguished from foliage with a sharp eye, but often not as easily as believed (I’m amazed at how well deer disappear even a few meters into wooded areas.)

Patience. When you know you’re in an area that sees frequent activity, or hear something, or simply know it’s a good area, this is where you wait it out. Get comfortable if you can, and a camo blind or anything that screens your own subtle movements can help here, and of course, being in shade works better. The longer you can wait, the more you’ll be able to see. Animals that were alerted to your presence when you arrived have time to relax and reappear. Being on a slope or rise above good areas lets you have a much better view, but also be aware of what you look like yourself, and don’t silhouette yourself against the sky or something that shows your contrast. When photographing, you’re going to pick areas that give you a clear field of view and a good background, uncluttered and photogenic, preferably giving you something that contrasts from your chosen subjects to help them stand out.

Use the tire marks for comparison - yes, those are bear tracks
Tracks. This is a field of special education all its own, and I couldn’t do justice to it in a post. It depends on what you want to do; it’s easy to identify that tracks came from a mammal, for instance, and if that’s all you need to know then you’re set. But if you want to differentiate otters from raccoons, or skunks from cats, that takes a bit more effort, and a good tracking guide is recommended. If you suspect nighttime visitors, for instance, you can spread a layer of fine white sand or gypsum (drywall) powder in likely travel areas and check for tracks in the morning – the gypsum powder will make more distinctive tracks but needs to remain dry. Overall, however, tracks simply indicate that this is a good area to start observing.

Scat. Or poop, if you prefer. This can also be used to identify what’s been visiting, and gives a better indication of how recently than tracks will, but for reasons mysterious, you may not want to mess with it. Knowing the basic types helps a lot, however: deer, rabbit, raccoon, fox, and so on. If you’re unsure, poking through it (a stick, at least, is recommended) can reveal what the animal has been eating recently, through the presence of small bones, seeds, grains, et cetera. Of course, this means you must know what diet the species has as well.

Other signs. This might mean small holes dug into soft ground (or an excavated beehive,) saplings with small branches nibbled off, deposits of mollusc shells, patches of fur or feathers in one spot, and so on. Again, for these to mean something, you have to know what’s in your area and what its habits are. Many people think deer graze, like cows, but they browse instead, eating new shoots and saplings, berries, garden plants, and the like. They’ll strip off soft bark from saplings, but bucks (males) will also score it with their rack to mark territory and clear the velvet off new horns. A cluster of fur or a patch of feathers often denotes fox or wolf ate something there, but smaller cases might indicate raccoon or opossum, and sometimes either is an indication of birds-of-prey instead – it can be very tricky to tell which. Beavers and muskrats do not touch fish, being strictly vegetarian, so finding something that’s been feeding on molluscs and shellfish means raccoons and otters, most likely (I admit I’m sticking to North American species here from experience.) Beaver signs are easy to find, consisting of the obvious felled trees, but also twigs stripped of bark, especially floating or with a series of crosswise teethmarks, trees with bark stripped off up to half a meter off the ground, and of course, dams. In my area, there are virtually no lodges; instead, the beavers live in the banks, often under tree roots.

Interpreting behavior. This is actually much harder to do than it would seem, but because we tend to have a greater affinity for mammals than for birds or reptiles (or insects, imagine that,) we often fall for the trap that we know what they’re thinking, or what some particular aspect of behavior means. Yet, we may live around domesticated dogs or cats all of our lives and still not know what certain behaviors mean – we just think that we do. Virtually no animal thinks like us, or has the slightest reason to, and they all have their own particular social interactions. It’s best to simply keep very specific notes, remaining aware of all that you can, and leave the interpretations as mere speculation.

Imitation. I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, but many animals rely more on the behavior of other species, including us, than appearances. What this means is that behaving like a deer is actually more reassuring to a deer than looking like one. We have a wicked tendency to stop and stare when we see something, but this is actually predatory behavior, and often sends all kinds of warning signs to mammals (and birds too.) However, I have crept closer to deer and herons by imitating their behavior, especially that which sends the message that everything is cool. For herons, this was slow, lazy gazing around at the surroundings, careful steps in the shallow water, and preening behavior – yes, really; I was ducking, shrugging, and lifting my ‘wing’ to get at the ‘feathers’ on my side, and walked within 4 or 5 meters of a Great Blue Heron in Florida. For deer, this meant dipping my head low while wandering around slowly, examining the ground rather than them, and moving closer at an oblique angle rather than directly. It’s startling how well this can work, but overall, should only be attempted once you’ve already been spotted. Remaining motionless is still the best way to prevent discovery.

Stay safe! This must go hand-in-hand with the sections above. As tempting as it may be to get nice close photos, or to have that “special encounter,” most mammals can do us a great deal of damage if so inclined. From my years of doing wildlife rescue and rehabilitation, I have a scar on my shoulder from a cute little grey squirrel that someone had tried to raise as a pet, and raccoons are a species that I’ll handle only with a net. We really don’t know what behavior, what circumstances, what line, constitutes a threat to most species and invites an aggressive response, and once it occurs we’re likely in no position to deal with it. This applies even to habituated animals in parks and refuges. So the cardinal rule is, keep your distance, and always have your escape route. Don’t keep pushing your luck by seeing just how close you can get, or by believing that since nothing has happened so far, this will continue to hold true. Most especially, animals with young should be left entirely alone (as in, leave the area,) and mating season is a time to remain very discreet. If any animal is staring at you, this is a warning sign, and walking up to you is very likely not a friendly gesture, but the test to see if you’re serious about invading their territory – the charge comes next. Relying on our human ideas of behavior is almost always a bad idea. Treat everything as if it’s an alien species from another planet, with unknown abilities and responses – this is the right attitude of respect and caution.

To go along with that: Rabies is active in the mammal population across, at the least, the eastern seaboard of the US. The risks of this are often overstated, since it is no reason to avoid going out into the woods to look for mammals, but it does mean that you treat odd behavior as potentially dangerous. Most people think rabid animals are especially aggressive, but another trait of infection is the ‘dumb’ rabies, where animals are disoriented, slow, clumsy, and often spaced-out in appearance. This can give the impression of a sick or injured animal. Ditch the nurturing instincts and leave it be – call animal control as needed.

Baby mammals: On occasion, you may come across what appears to be an orphaned or abandoned mammal, and feel this necessitates intervention. Once again, contact animal control or the local wildlife authority for your area (throughout the US, each state has a wildlife commission which will generally provide better resources than the federal US Fish & Wildlife Commission can – that’s how the jurisdiction breaks down.) And do this before you even pick up the animal – there are many circumstances where you should not interfere in any way. For instance, fawns instinctively stay put, laying down in tall grass while their mother forages, and may appear abandoned when this is business as usual. Many animal parents spring off at signs of danger, hoping to draw attention away from their young, and have not abandoned them at all.

Further, raising an orphan should never be attempted without proper education, and most states require specific permits to do this legally anyway. From having been in this field, I can’t stress this enough – it’s not as easy as it seems, and this is a wretched way of indulging your nurturing instincts. Mammal diets are specialized, and their behavior patterns as adults are, to some extent, established in their childhood; other behaviors come up naturally, and thus pets cannot be created just by getting them young. Rehabilitation takes education and experience, and the concern over an animal’s life should be the very reason not to attempt this on your own, since it’s far too easy to permanently, fatally affect an infant.

I’ll say it again: Mammal observation is often hard, and all the tips in the world won’t guarantee your ability to see something. You’ll have to work at it, and use patience, but most times it’s far more rewarding when you’re successful than with other types of animals. With luck, you’ll discover a situation where you can see frequent visits and start getting a good collection of observational notes, and perhaps some pics too.

Good luck!


The Fish is back

I feel obligated to let my four readers know that the blog Weird Things has rebooted. Greg Fish took a hiatus because of time demands earlier this year, with no promises of a return. But he was kind enough to send me an e-mail last night announcing his encore, and I am happy to send people his way again. Technically, I never really stopped, because his link remained there in the blogroll, simply marked “Archive” since he had plenty of interesting posts available to work through, but now you can find new content as well.

Greg is one of those that likes to show up bloggers like me, because he made a point of having a post every damn day, missing this only through a period of illness. I’m nowhere’s near that kind of activity, but I feature more of my own illustrations (as in, nearly all of the pics you see here.) That makes up for it, right? Right?

Anyway, be sure to check it out. And, naturally, don’t miss the others in the blogroll to the right, who’ve been posting steadily while Greg took his six-month vacation ;-)

Keep the good

While anxious neurotics the world over are wailing desperately about where christmas actually comes from and how it’s gotten all secular, most others manage to get at least a little generosity and benevolence from the holiday, and use this time of year to favor those less fortunate than themselves. Whether or not this actually springs from religious roots (I have my doubts,) we can use this to positive effect anyway.

In 1984, Midge Ure and Bob Geldof organized a benefit effort to produce food and money to help alleviate, and raise awareness of, the vast amount of starvation in Africa, and convinced dozens of pop stars to participate. The result is the best christmas song ever performed – don’t try arguing with me ;-)

It doesn’t matter whether or not you celebrate christmas, or agree with any particular attitude that someone, myself included, might have. There’s always someone out there that needs help, and every one of us can provide this in some way. It shouldn’t be restricted to this time of year, or need to be limited to Africa either – anyplace is good to start.

It’s not to win points. It’s not to appease our conscience. It’s simply because we are all human, and that should be more valuable than electronic toys and overpriced fashions – just a matter of perspective. If this is the ‘right’ time of year to start thoughts of goodwill and selflessness, well, so be it.

Peace.

Shortcuts

I think everybody probably knows someone like this: the person that, in their everlasting quest for shortcuts, ends up taking obscure, winding routes to “avoid traffic” or stoplights or whatever, and goes several kilometers further than necessary, often taking longer to do so as well. I’ve certainly known more than a couple. My brother-in-law once decided, when the winter weather turned ugly, to dodge the Baltimore-Washington Expressway and cut through the Virginia mountains, because when the roads get treacherous, it’s always better to avoid the one highway in the country guaranteed to remain plowed and instead take the route with lots of inclines and curves…

Some decision-making shortcuts are this way. In all honesty, we use shortcuts all the time. Every time we use a credit or debit card, especially online, we usually have no idea if the process is truly secure, or even how to determine this other than a websearch. When we see a new food item or pharmaceutical in our local stores, we not only assume it’s safe, but effective as well. And all I really have to do is mention the word, “politics”…

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins relates a test given by psychologist George Tamarin to Israeli adolescents, just some simple questions. Presented with the scriptural account of god commanding Joshua’s followers to wipe out an entire city (but keep the valuables for god), the children were asked if such actions were actually moral, or ‘right’; it is perhaps unsurprising, yet still disturbing, that a majority considered genocide okay, largely because it was commanded by god. This is a pattern that is often repeated in discussions of religious morality with adults as well: it is moral because god commands it. When such statements are put to the test, a significant number of religious folk admit that yes, they would kill someone if commanded by god.

The interesting twist was presented to a different group of kids from the same background, where the situation was identical except for changing the circumstances to a Chinese general in ancient China. Now, however, the answer was different: a larger majority said that the actions were immoral and wrong.

The key difference here being whether god decrees it or not. So, suppose we change it from the classic ‘god/allah’ of Abrahamic scripture (‘yahweh’ or ‘YHWH’ if that helps,) to another deity: baal, or vishnu, or xuan wu, or !xu? Do the actions related within the scriptures now sound rather barbaric? Does, for instance, the complete drowning of all life on earth, save for a select breeding population, because of the sins of humans (and one must presume that it certainly could not have been all humans save for Noah’s immediate family) sound like a petulant and psychotic action, from a deity with some serious issues? Does the idea of someone who sacrifices his daughters to a horny gang to spare two total strangers the same fate sound like rewardable behavior?

The argument, when such scenarios are presented, is that god is the one true god, and god is good. But how do we even determine that? “Well, it says so right there in the scripture, which is the word of god.” That’s what we call a circular argument, exactly the same as my typing, “Al is absolutely correct in everything that he says.” No one would buy this for a second, and quite frankly, I’m glad. Yet, they build their entire lives around it when it comes to religion.

If we bother to apply just a smidgen of thought to it for a second, we find that there seems to be two definitions of ‘good’; one that deals with treating people with respect and mutual beneficence, and one that says, “what god wants,” regardless of the affect on people, even those too young and naive to understand any adult issues. As hard as this may be to believe, there are people (a lot of them) unthinking enough to hear a simple statement like, “god is good,” and actually accept that as an infallible rule over everything that common sense tells them. Imparted to them long ago as “truth,” there was never a reason to revisit it and seek support.

Isn’t that cool? All you really have to do is repeat something, especially if you call it “traditional” or “virtuous,” and you have no need to do silly little things like establish a line of reasoning or a body of evidence. It doesn’t matter how fucked up the statement really is, just keep repeating it. For good measure, tell someone that they’re good if they believe it. Start early, or course, before the child learns that adults have a tendency to lie; that way, you might be lucky (the odds are, fortunately, in your favor) and the child won’t ever revisit the statement with a thinking brain.

There are some snags, of course – you have to take the good with the bad (a ha ha.) For example, it works even with such ludicrous concepts as islamic terrorism, Irish nationalism – well, nationalism of any kind, really – and come to think of it, racism, sexism, classism, tribalism, brand loyalty… gosh, it pops up a lot, doesn’t it?

Leaving behind the sarcasm for a second, I have to point out two interesting things about this post. The first is, it’s been in draft form for a while because it wasn’t coming out as I liked; meanwhile, I had the visitor that I mentioned here, and I thus had the opportunity to bring it up with her. It’s also the reason why I make no distinction between moderate and extremist faith, regardless of what affect they seem to be having. When the primary support for a belief system (religious or not) is based upon some assertion or assumed value, then the system has a critical, fatal flaw. Moreover, there’s the bit where anyone with an agenda can manipulate people as desired, because all it takes is a new assertion. Can you say, “splinter sect?”

Worse, however, is how often this actually is recognized, not only by priests and evangelists, but by political parties in the US. Have you noticed the frequency with which the religious card is played? This is only because it is widely known that people drop all pretense of rational thought when it comes to religion, so it’s an automatic win. The candidates don’t have to worry about their policies, past record, future goals, or anything else – just mention their fealty to god, regardless of how little this has to do with the office they’re proposing to fill, and more than enough unthinking automatons will start salivating like Pavlov’s dogs. Barnum had it all wrong: there’s a sucker baptized every minute. Even among those that, as preposterous as this sounds, might have actually thought about whether merely mentioning god is sufficient, far too often this thought gets pushed away by the realization that they would then exempt themselves from being able to flash their own ‘good’ card.

It’s not just religion that exploits this trait (though by far it’s the worst offender) – the same might be said for appending the word “spiritual” to something, or “holistic,” or even “natural.” Many things are natural, including snake venom and poison ivy, salmonella and brain tumors. Yet when applied to food, for some reason, it changes definition to indicate “healthy.” Even more interesting, the very application of any of these words seems to automatically imply, to a majority of people, that anything not bearing such adjectives must therefore be unnatural, unhealthy, or some other unsavory attribute.

However, if we decide that the definition of ‘good,’ to return to the original example, reflects how we get along with one another, then distinguishing good from bad might require something more than skin color or nationality, or allegiance to a god or sports team or city where one was born. It would require seeing that some action was, oh, I don’t know, beneficial in some way. Admittedly, this is a very difficult thing to determine, and might require the consumption of three calories in thought. Here’s a wild and crazy idea to entertain, though: if someone cannot spare the effort, maybe they shouldn’t be making any decisions in the first place?

What becomes clear is that decisions are a process, a process that probably should be followed all of the time for every situation, rather than seeing if some variable factor can be jammed into a category with predetermined characteristics. Not every shortcut is a benefit; not every rule can apply to every situation, nor every pattern free from inconsistency. In the centuries that we’ve been expanding our scientific knowledge, we have only a handful of steadfast rules that appear unbreakable, most applying to physics reactions and ratios. Not one, ever, has been found to apply to human behavior – hell, we can’t even count on perfect consistency with evidence-based medicine, the kind that brought us anesthetics and decongestants. No political party could be said to be composed solely of morons, hippies, communists, or corporate shills; no scientist can ever be said to be right all of the time.

In fact, consistency and rules are so rare that it could almost be said that any time some distinct assertion is offered, it is certainly wrong. While we’d really like something dependable that never requires examination, some shortcut to save us even a tiny smidgen of time or effort, such things almost never exist – we’re better off knowing how to avoid such crutches and applying a judicial eye to everything instead. Not only does it lead to better decisions, it can save us from being pawns or schmucks as well. Even natural ones.

Just because, part five

This is, unfortunately, a great example of a photo that’s far too busy – too many different things clashing together, preventing any strong focal point and destroying the uncluttered composition that every photographer should strive for. Given what I was after, though, there wasn’t much I could do about it, and catching the spray of water was the main accomplishment.

Back when I lived in Florida, I frequented an area on the channel inside the barrier islands called the Indian River Lagoon (though everyone dropped the “lagoon” part.) This was a fun place to snorkel, since it was mostly saltwater and harbored marine life of all sorts, and was as fecund as a rainforest. What you’re seeing in this pic is a typical rock in the water, completely hidden beneath various seaweeds, barnacles, and oysters. The barnacles and oysters were especially memorable, since they’re remarkably sharp and quite capable of dealing nasty injuries; most of my trips resulted in at least a few small cuts, and I still have a distinctive scar on my hamstring area from stepping off a rock and dragging my heel down the edge of an oyster shell.

The water level was lower than normal at the time this pic was taken, and the oyster here is just barely in the water. It was opening its shell to draw in some nutrient-rich water, then expelling the filtered remnants back out again with a sudden contraction. This usually occurs completely submerged, but in this case the spray was ejecting out into the air instead, making a rude gesture to all passing.

Not, however, as rude as another example a little later on. This time, I was completely submerged and examining the rocks through the dive mask, and noticed a different effect. Another oyster was occasionally emitting a cloud of milky white effluent that would drift off in the current. I got up very close to view this is detail, then realized what I was probably seeing – “white” is the clue, but “milk” is in the wrong direction. Let’s be real: species that are attached firmly to rocks are not going to be avid readers of the Kama Sutra, since their options are, shall we say, limited. Fabulous.

I’m realistic, and I know the water is full of all sorts of things like that, but there is admittedly a bit of difference in cases of immediate proximity. I don’t know whether to be insulted or flattered, but I can say that it hasn’t happened since I’ve put on weight. Perhaps not the best incentive for losing it, either…

Book Review: Big Bang

This was a book that, I admit, wasn’t on my reading list, but when I came across a copy I began reading it out of interest. It is a credit to the author that I stayed with it, and chose to throw it into the review lineup.

Big Bang by Simon Singh is named in a very straightforward way, since it lays out the entire history of the currently-preferred theory of the origin of the universe, colloquially called the “Big Bang” by one of its early detractors. But Singh doesn’t just stick to the theory itself; he builds virtually the entire history of cosmology, taking care to elaborate on the various details that form the foundations. I was fairly familiar with the general principles and most of the science before I started reading, which meant that this was an already-solved mystery for me, and yet, I found the development of these details quite interesting – not to mention that Singh introduced several new aspects to me as well. From my position as an enthusiast about astronomy, cosmology, and science in general, I found little that he glossed over or failed to explain.

It’s easy to have a book of this kind become something of a list, merely pointing out the key steps, and the potential for a dry, clinical synopsis is pretty high – see Wikipedia, for example. Instead, what is presented is the process itself and those who participated, the trials and successes they experienced, and even the personalities they displayed. While Singh doesn’t concentrate on any particular person within, it is easy for the reader to get a taste of what each person was like, and how this affected the discoveries they made.

That’s the sneaky part about this book. There’s an underlying message about the humanity of even scientists, where emotions and personal preferences colored the progress of the theory throughout. Those that view scientists as some kind of elitist snobs might relish this aspect, since it reminds us that we’re all human and prone to errors and bias, but scientists don’t hold some particular attitude or caste simply by being scientists, any more than truck drivers do. There’s a deeper message than that, because within the sometimes-astounding mental prowess sits the subconscious influences of emotion, ego, and even complacency. To see how it affected our scientific progress is a great reminder to remain as open-minded as possible, and to accept mistakes rather than try to deny them. The discoveries that we make are greater than the human concerns that preoccupy us (and even blind us) all too often.

Another subtle aspect that I caught was how much the various wars influenced our progress. Countless scientists abandoned promising research to perform some function during wartime; some of them died doing so. These abrupt stops and long interruptions clearly had an affect on our pursuit of knowledge, only on rare occasions positively. It is easy to accept the ideology of serving one’s country, but in most cases, scientists do so at the expense of serving mankind instead. And there’s even the bonus of finding how many significant contributions to the whole theory were made by those with little or no training in the fields, something that we non-scientists can appreciate, at least.

Singh devotes the last chapter to the issues yet to be resolved with the theory, and provides a bit of perspective on the way. It is easy to read the book and consider the perplexity of the people at the time, before stellar spectra or nuclear fusion were discovered, but we’re in the same position now, with the questions of dark matter, the inflation period, and dark energy. Opponents of science like to consider these as damaging to the theory, yet they are merely gaps awaiting further understanding, which is how science progresses. Such gaps do not cause the numerous supporting factors that we now have to vanish, and any alternate explanation has to take these same factors into account. The main reason that the Big Bang is favored over the Quasi-Steady State for cosmological theories is that it explains much more, and even predicted a major discovery, two decades before we had the ability to make it (the Cosmic Microwave Background.)

The reader also meets another aspect of scientific theory that assures us of accuracy, that of cross-disciplinary support. Astronomy used to consist of merely observation and careful mathematics, but we garnered so much more information when we found that it tied in with the physics of light, nuclear interactions, radio waves, chemistry, and so on. In fact, the basic laws of physics, of merely existing, got simpler as we found that everything we see obeys the same sets of behaviors. The periodic table of elements, originally listing all known matter in the order of their atomic weights, was eventually found to also list them largely in order of their abundance in the universe, as well as the number of protons in the nucleus. This was evidence of how stars form nearly all elements from the fusion by-products of hydrogen, while the presence of these elements blocks certain wavelengths of light within stars and tells us how massive, and old, they are. The xenon gas that forms the functional portion of every camera flash is the residue of not just normal stellar activity, but of rare supernovae, and tells us the sun is a son itself, being at least second-generation in the universe (it’s considered third generation, actually.)

One might ask how much use cosmology has to us; what purpose there is to knowing how the universe began. But this is the same kind of thinking trap as “serving one’s country,” above. Knowledge gained is available to be used everywhere, and it’s impossible to predict how, but I can list two prime examples. The first is, with the knowledge that we gain from space probes devoted to entirely unrelated tasks, we are (hopefully) developing the ability to ward off a cataclysmic collision with some wandering asteroid, a fate that affects this planet periodically and unpredictably. The second is that, by changing our impressions of human life from “deliberate and goal-oriented” (which religion provided us) to “incidental and insignificant” (which is what nature tells us,) we can see that our continued existence on this planet is not guaranteed, but requires careful stewardship, which might help head off doing something irretrievably stupid like depleting our natural resources too far.

While Singh mentions religion only in passing, I have more than a faint suspicion that Big Bang is written, at least in part, in response to the anti-science emphasis seen far too often today. Cute little sound bites and over-simplified arguments attempt to disguise the overwhelming body of evidence that we have regarding things like the Big Bang theory, and Singh’s book is a distinct, approachable, and entertaining response to such childish tactics. Anyone can deny whatever they choose, but this book demonstrates that they cannot do so with cosmology from any standpoint resembling intellectual honesty. Those with enough integrity to leave behind the gutter rules of debate will find there’s far too much evidence in support of the universe’s age and behavior to even create an argument.

Singh’s writing is concise and free-flowing, almost conversational, and while he talks about some of the more involved portions of physics, it is at a level understandable by virtually anyone. Anyone expecting a science book to be dense and require specific knowledge will be pleasantly surprised, and Big Bang can be handled by any reader from middle school on up. The biggest fault I had, virtually the only one, is that he deals with specific aspects of cosmology at the expense of the chronological order, so that the book skips back and forth a little and makes it hard to place things in the context of then-current knowledge – this is mostly true for the earlier sections. Other readers may find this easy to ignore, however. Big Bang is a great primer that brings the reader up-to-date with the efforts we’re making right now to piece together the largest historical event, well, ever, and is altogether fascinating, humbling, and encouraging.

I’m glad somebody said it

I had originally started a post on largely this topic when the news was full of the epic awesome wonderfulness of Steve Jobs, the man who, according to the media hype, was the most amazing businessman on the planet. When these died out rather quickly, I let the post go, but now The New Yorker has a kind of biographical article on Jobs, and I’ll simply point you to that. If you’re one of the Apple worshippers, best to just skip over that one – it’s not pretty.

No, I don’t engage in Mac vs PC wars – I think if you’re hung up on branding then you’re too stupid to take advice from, or even involve in grownup conversation. No product has ever impressed me very much, and every last one of those who tried to tell me how great Apple is could not even display basic competence in computers – funny that. But if you’re buying a Mac to avoid those nasty viruses, maybe you could save a bit of money (actually, quite a lot) and just learn how to use the internet safely instead.

Here’s another tip: when someone tells you something, there’s always a chance that it is simply made up. Remember that the next time you are assured that any product is innovative (or even “original” – if you don’t get that joke, remember what I said about grownup conversations.)

Frustrations, part seven: Still not clean

I actually got out last night for the Leonids meteor shower, braving the cold like a dedicated nature photographer… well, okay, to a small extent, anyway. I was unable to travel very far, so it meant trying to find a darker sky spot in an area not particularly known for it. The cities aren’t big around here, but they’re spaced just right to mean traveling a long distance to get away from light pollution effectively. My choice last night was an area largely screened by trees, and aiming north towards the most rural areas.

While I managed to spot a few meteors, I don’t think I captured any on film. And yes, I mean literally on film (though not literally captured – oh, never mind) since I was using both the digital SLR and the Mamiya 645 medium format camera. I’ve had much better luck with film for astrophotography, since it produces more color and is less prone to noise for long exposures, but we’ll have to wait a bit to see what I might have gotten – the few meteors I spotted probably fell outside the view of the 45mm lens (which is a nice, wide angle on 6×4.5 film, roughly equivalent to a focal length of 24mm on film cameras – why are we still calling them “35mm”? – and about 15mm on DSLRs.)

The five frames I got on digital showed no telltale streaks except from aircraft, which were still far too busy when I was out after 11 PM – this is kind of a north/south airway region. “Five frames?” you say (go ahead, don’t leave me hanging.) But yes, the point of meteor photography is that you’re never going to capture anything if you wait until you see it to trip the shutter, because they’re visible typically less than a second, so you lock open the shutter and just wait for something to cross your field of view. I was doing exposures between five and fifteen minutes with the digital, and the ambient air temperature was 2°C (36°F,) so both sets of batteries died out after an hour. Had I seen more than three meteors, I might have continued a little longer with the Mamiya, but I figured I was cold enough for the sparse activity last night. There was frost on the tripod legs as I packed it in.


That is pretty much my luck with meteor showers. Most happen to fall on evenings with poor visibility, regardless of how long we might have gone with crystal skies leading up to the showers. When we do get clear skies, the activity is pathetic. With one exception.

In 2001 I had just moved to Georgia, and on the evening of the Leonids, I spotted a spectacular airburst, resembling a crashing plane, on the drive home – on the interstate, by a brightly lit exit, from inside the car. It would have been awesome in a dark-sky location. So I poked around until I found a nice dark location and spent most of the early morning out there. It was a fabulous night, and I was maintaining a count of all the meteors I was seeing directly – glimpses and corner-of-the-eye didn’t count. In the first hour I was over two dozen, having shattered my old personal record of thirteen for one night when living in central New York, where the skies were quite dark and I often walked at night. By 4 AM when I was about to wrap it up, I spotted twenty just in the time it took me to pack up the camera and tripod, convincing me that the peak was coming and I should probably hang around a bit longer. That morning, I stopped counting at three hundred clearly seen, with an unknown number glimpsed, all in about five hours.

One in particular was spectacular, burning parallel to the horizon and lighting up the entire sky, fragmenting and leaving multiple trails (I checked the next day to be sure the ISS hadn’t re-entered by accident.) Even more interesting was when I realized that the tree in my field of view was flickering, indicating some light coming from behind me and suggesting I was missing a similar light show back there.

Now, the sad confession: I have no photos of this whatsoever. Well, I have most of a roll of film that I shot that night, but I wasn’t stocked up and what I had handy was Kodak Portra 400 left over from a wedding. ISO 400 is a nice speed for night photography, fairly light-sensitive and color-responsive yet not too grainy to make things ugly, but Portra 400 is an exception because of a little something called reciprocity failure. Welcome to advanced film properties.

Reciprocity is the photography function that ties together aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, and basically means you can change any of these settings by a given amount, and change either of the other two in the opposite direction by the same amount (called the reciprocal,) and get the same exposure. So you can get very fast shutter speeds if you can open your aperture far enough – the reduction of light from the shutter is compensated by the additional light through the lens. In the realm of low light photography like at night, you can compensate by leaving the shutter open for long periods of time, and can make a moonlit scene appear to be daylight if you wait long enough.

Reciprocity failure is where this breaks down. Due to the nature of the chemical reaction to light, low amounts of light don’t always register on film, and so lengthening the exposure has a reduced effect, with diminishing returns depending on the amount of light and length of exposure, often with a color shift because the different layers of emulsion have different sensitivities. Some films, like Fuji Provia 100, handle this fairly well, but Kodak Portra 400 is not among them. The images I have from that evening are all blue, grainy, and show almost no stars at all, much less meteor streaks. For the best opportunity I’ve ever had, I totally blew the pics. Even the spectacular airburst, which might have overcome the film’s flaws, was well away from the direction the camera was aimed at the time.

And sometimes that’s how it goes (or at least it does for me.) The cool stuff happens when you’re not in a position to exploit it, and when you’re prepared, it’s quiet. Last night was hardly a shower, or even a trickle. One of these days I’ll capture a decent meteor storm, but in the meantime, I’ll experiment with lens tricks like this one. Bonus points if you can tell me how it was done ;-)

Later on, I’ll provide a quick tutorial on eradicating noise caused by bad sensor pixels from your digital images. Some Photoshop tricks are actually quite useful.

But is it art?

It’s funny, now that I think about it, that I haven’t tackled this subject here before. I mean, what’s a blog for?

The photographer part of me has this little hate-affair with the “art world.” While opinions vary a great deal, it isn’t hard to find the prejudice that photography is not art, and this is distinctly noticeable right where I live, in a community that considers itself supportive of the arts. Heaps of rusty scrap metal welded together into a shape vaguely reminiscent of something else is considered “art” sooner and much more often than photography, and the town art council seems to specialize in promoting pottery out the wazoo. Yet in the past year, I’ve seen them feature only one photography exhibit, and only two photographers are ever listed in their studio tours featuring roughly fifty artists – but you can see as many bowls as you’d like!

Now, I’m a fair guy, and it isn’t up to me to define what someone else should like. I’ve seen some wonderfully creative uses of pottery and scrap metal, but to consider them more valid than photography? Am I missing something?

I’m going to offer a bit of perspective, portions of which I’ve mentioned briefly elsewhere. Many people think photography takes little talent, and is simply copying what already exists – “the sunset was there; all you did was take a picture of it.” Yet if that was all there was to it, I wouldn’t be seeing the huge selection of shitty images that I do, wouldn’t you think? I wouldn’t spend my time teaching people how to compose their images, recognize how the contrast and light angles work, and critiquing approaches.

As an example, I could point out how painters can put their image elements together any damn way they please, leaving out what they don’t like, and representing a situation that never actually existed. If they want an eagle soaring against the sunset where you can still see detail in the shadowed side of the bird, no sweat! And it is even considered creative to paint a frog or lizard in some colors that could never occur in nature – a painter can get credit for ridiculous inaccuracy! It’s all good, because it’s “art.”

Yet, the photographer can only work with what’s present (we will ignore the studio photographer for the time being, and the select few who do digital composites and crap like that.) They’re handed a collection of elements almost totally out of their control, and they have to portray them in a manner that still produces a strong image. They usually cannot choose a background or foreground, and cannot leave out nonartistic elements except for selectively cropping them from the frame. They may wait for the right light, the right clouds in the sky, the right position or expression of their subject. They might seek a different vantage point that produces the right background or contrast (or reflection,) or use camera technique to purposefully blur or soften elements and draw attention to their subject. And in many cases, a particular aspect of their subject existed for fractions of a second only, and they had to anticipate this and capture it at its ideal time. Good photographers actually have to know something about art in the first place, in order to put all of the above actions to good use.

I would probably be fine with this and simply shrug it off, if it didn’t affect where and how I can market my images – too many venues are closed off from public appreciation by the director who fancies themselves in some way arteestique, and is thus dismissive of photography. Far too often, when it is included, only black & white is permissible, for reasons that have yet to be demonstrated. I have to admit to no small amusement when seeing what passes for art sometimes, especially in regards to depicting animals; I recently came across a painting for sale that I was surpassing in talent in sixth grade art class.

What’s more amusing, I think, is that far too much of art is defined by how much utter bullshit the artist can produce when describing it. A wall hanging of egg cartons and soda straws might be described as “the juxtaposition of spiritual alignments allowing the essence of mind and surroundings to unite,” but I’m pretty straightforward about it myself – it’s egg cartons and soda straws, even when painted brown. I’m all for seeing the metaphor in certain elements, and actually teach my students to look for them. But it is not a metaphor if you have to tell me that it is, and the addition of artistic buzzwords does not elevate some piece higher – call me a spoilsport. The cloying pretentiousness of the art world is astounding sometimes.

It’s not a big thing, since I generally don’t “do” art, but work instead on interest and illustration. Yet I frequently take the time to put an image together in a pleasing, compelling, and artistic way – there’s no reason one cannot have both illustration and composition. My creative tendencies as a youth were channeled into photography instead of painting or drawing (though I still chase model-building from time to time.) I just find it funny that photography still gets short shrift when someone that glues broken glass together into bizarre shapes is considered “legitimate.”

Then again, maybe it’s because photography is too realistic, and doesn’t leave much room for imagination when describing it. No one needs to be told what they’re looking at, so there’s little opportunity to spew some existentialist post-modern interpretation of swirling colors.

Whatever, I’m not going to change it. I do what I like, and if someone else likes it too, great! Whether it falls into some specially defined category or not doesn’t alter it, though if someone’s perception of it is altered by such a category, well, that’s their issue. I’m sure someone can make up a description for that, too ;-)


Probably not

Recently, I came across two posts on probability, both of which possessing some serious issues. This is actually a common occurrence, since probability is one of those things that confuses people and is, in many ways, counterintuitive. What’s interesting about both of them is that the answers revealed are misleading in the same manner as the intuitive solutions.

The first is, “How unfathomable were your odds of coming into being?” This one is annoying in that there are countless ways that this question can be interpreted, and only one is displayed. Especially painful is the tagline at the top of the infographic which reads, “…and reveals that the odds of you existing are almost zero.” This is a classic case of misinterpretation – since you’re reading this, you exist, so the odds of you actually existing are 1 in 1, alternately listed as 1:1, 1/1, or simply 1, otherwise known as “guaranteed” (Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers get it right.) The question implied by the solution is more along the lines of, “What are the odds of known variable factors within common knowledge leading to exactly your point in time, rather than some other?”, which isn’t even accurate in itself. Start with, the odds of your dad meeting your mom being, as listed, 1 in 20,000 – that’s not true at all. You have to factor in how much your dad and mom might have traveled, how big the town they lived in was, how many people worked in the same place, and so on. And since a certain percentage of people marry their childhood sweetheart, you can run some figures on how many people were in the school they attended, within a few years of age, or in the immediate neighborhood. It’s way, way off base to create a random figure of available women (or men) and assume that anyone could have met any of them, like they were playing Spin The Bottle in a very large room…

The second part of this is, you can provide any particular scenario, compared against the number of variations, and marvel lightheadedly at the number involved. What are the chances, for instance, of the atoms within your body being at exactly such-and-such coordinates at some particular picosecond, compared to anyplace else in the universe? I could produce a number even greater than that displayed by the infographic, but again, this is meaningless; in another picosecond, the atoms have shifted position and attained yet another astoundingly high number, which turns your entire life into a series of events so improbable that you should cease existence almost immediately. Then again, it’s a fairly high probability that you will be someplace on the surface of the earth, wherever it is in the universe, and so that astoundingly high number drops drastically. In grim reality, the atoms within your body are very likely to remain in the immediate vicinity, within a fraction of a millimeter of where they were before. The variations that take place, for virtually any action or process, are usually quite small from moment to moment, often influenced by environmental factors. When your body moves at all, it moves to an area immediately adjacent to where it once was, often influenced by the trend of how you had been moving previously – you don’t reverse direction or shoot off at random angles. While your overall path can vary greatly from a starting point, how it gets there is through a series of tiny variations, many of which are extremely likely. Interestingly, this is a great analogy for evolution, which produces significant changes in small increments over long periods of time.

The likelihood of you being you, as in, thinking and behaving in a certain way, is actually much higher than implied by this whole situation, as well. You probably received your education at the nearest school, and from the same parents as any siblings, and from whatever situations you might have found yourself within (say, being shipped off to summer camp.) Those factors all serve to narrow down the chances of certain outcomes; if you were born in the US, for instance, the chances of you speaking nothing but Farsi are pretty slim. The chances of you attending a summer camp in Australia, also slim – the camp you attended is probably within easy driving distance, just due to common convenience. You probably look human, breathe air, eat protein, and shit shit. If you were truly as unique as implied by the quoted figure, you probably wouldn’t even have offspring yourself, because you wouldn’t be able to find a spouse that you had anything in common with ;-)

The other post is not as bad, and even better, the commenters are doing a good job of correcting it. Jason Rosenhouse at EvolutionBlog presents a chestnut that challenges some assumptions while falling blindly into others, making kind of a mess of the whole thing. As he mentions, there’s a probability puzzle called the Monty Hall Problem, where the actual probabilities are different from what intuition tells us it should be – mostly because “Monty” knows the goal that the contestant seeks. Very briefly: you choose one of three doors that might have a prize. Monty opens one of the two remaining that you did not choose, revealing no prize. Are your chances better with switching, or staying with your original choice? Look at it this way: you had a 2 in 3 chance of being wrong initially, and if so, Monty just showed you which one to pick. The chances are doubly in your favor by switching, as long as you don’t pick the door Monty already opened…

So, a man comes up to you on the street and says, “I have two children and one is a son born on a Tuesday.” What is the probability that the other child is also a son? Most people would say 1 in 2, or 50%.

Now it gets screwed up. Jason points out that,

It follows that the sexes of his two children, ordered from oldest to youngest, are either BB, BG or GB.

But this is wrong, because the other scenario, not listed, is also Boy/Boy, only this time the son named is the youngest and not the eldest. The oldest/youngest factor is a red herring. In other words, there are only three scenarios for two kids (both girls, both boys, and one of each) and one has been eliminated. It’s still 1 in 2.

Then, he goes on to speculate what affect Tuesday has on the situation, and the chances of the other child being born on whatever day of the week. This is called needlessly multiplying probabilities, because adding further options (hair color, time of day, and so on) does not change the original factors at all.

Then, he introduces the factor of how this particular man might have been selected. Now, we’ve ventured outside of the realm of simple word problems and into real-world scenarios that we have not been given information about. “What if the man was selected because he had one son born on a Tuesday?” Yes, you can start adding in contingencies, but all this does is show that probabilities can only be calculated within rigid circumstances. I can immediately ask, “Selected from where?” and find that this experiment was done in a town with more girls than boys in the population, and the probabilities are thus biased from the 1 in 2.

The problem, for instance, never allowed for the probability that one of the children was a hermaphrodite. We have to consider that the man might be insecure (probably over the concern that his child would turn out both gay and lesbian) and thus want to prove himself Mr. Clever Dick by putting one over on a total stranger, so the likelihood that his child is hermaphroditic is even higher than the normal percentage within any given population – it’s a great opportunity for such a trick question (though rather taxing on the child who is usually called upon to prove it.) And since you are either a dick or you’re not, the chances of the man being a dick are 1 in 2, right? Unless the man is a driver in North Carolina, in which case it’s 17 in 19…

[Okay, you’re going to love this. I paused and saved the draft right here, and checked my spam folder for its frequent new additions. There were two messages in there, one from a commenter with “shemale” in the name. What are the chances?!]

What all of this does serve to illustrate, however, is one way in which critical thinking can be applied, since probabilities are very frequently misused. And they can rarely be applied to a given situation with any degree of accuracy anyway, because environmental variables in real-world situations are too vast to calculate. I frequently remind people that math is an abstraction, and is only used with certain aspects being assumed or ‘given.’ Two oranges rarely ever equal twice the mass of one orange, and even the surface of the orange can only be calculated on a broad level, because at the atomic level there is little than can be measured…

This also puts paid to the claims, ever so frequently given, that the chances of such-and-such event (complex life, evolution, bacteria flagella…) occurring is a specific number, like one-in-a-billion. There is, literally, no way in which such a thing could ever be calculated, because there is no way to know all of the factors involved. Therefore, there is a 1 in 1 chance that any such quoted number has been pulled out of someone’s ass, and can safely be dismissed as a blatant lie intended to influence your thinking.

Glad to be of help.

1 287 288 289 290 291 318